Re: Word processors [was Re: Phonemes]

On 23 Jun 2005 22:27:19 GMT, Des Small
<vonbladet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:3i0ra7Fjg5moU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in sci.lang:

> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> So you've never been the person responsible for having a
>> work you've (co)written go to the publisher, be
>> copyedited, and be typeset.

>> For that procedure, a robust and universal system is
>> needed -- MSWord has emerged as the standard, and some
>> still swear by WordPerfect. (I've never had occasion to
>> use the mathematics tools in Word and have no idea how
>> good its output is;

> Wretched, if not worse. To say nothing (which is plenty)
> of its input. Imagine replacing IPA by chiselling
> spectrographs by hand in slate with a bar of soap, then
> you're maybe approaching the ball park of the
> difference. LaTeX is the standard in the discipline for
> precisely that reason.

OO.o has a *much* better input system for its math editor
than MS Word's. I've had no reason to learn (La)TeX, but
from the little I've picked up by accident it appears that
OO.o uses a simplified and limited version.

>> FrameMaker has a math-setting system that appears to be
>> easier to use than Word's, but again I have no idea how
>> well the output turns out.)

> Not especially well in the examples I know I've seen, but
> they may well not have been optimal.

Perfectly adequate for producing undergraduate exams, which
is the only use to which I've put either MS Word or OO.o.

[...]

Brian
.

Quantcast